Every Thursday night I have my General's Ghosts poker night, and last Thursday I had the pleasure of sharing some fine Kentucky Bourbon and Cigars with the ghosts of Generals Sherman, Pershing and Patton, and herewith is my best transcript of some of the ideas these good old boys were kicking around. Not saying I agree with them now, but last night they looked pretty good:
Solutions to the US-created quagmire in Iraq are being entertained with an unprecedented sense of urgency, and yet they range in a narrow band from slightly decreasing troops to slightly increasing them. No proposed solution discusses the root causes of the problem, namely a culture that has had its institutions literally ripped from it, plagued by an inherently unjust and decrepit infrastructure, with a wholesale lack of tools and resources to address day-to-day, and historical, grievances. Sectarian infighting has begun in earnest, and no government, as imagined by the US or anyone else, stands half a chance of stemming the violence.
We are suffering from a classic and yet at the same time perhaps unprecedented failure, mainly a failure of imagination. And so we are trying to solve a problem with the symbols that created it, and find ourselves in a sort of paradox in reverse. Either the US pulls out and the fighting gets worse, since leaving would then result in even poorer security, or it adds more troops and the fighting gets worse, since at the core of the current state of terrorism in Iraq is the highly convenient resentment of the US presence there.
Perhaps we need to think outside the falafal, and start with a vision of what the solution could look like, with the only requirement that a heavy and wet blanket be thrown over the red hot violence. What would it take to tamp down the rampant shootings and bombings?
The premise we are operating under is that no matter what the US does, Iraq will continue to disintegrate. And what if that's true? What if, due to all the forces of history and geography and fate, based on all that has led us to this moment, Iraq is intractably heading towards an unchecked rampage that will end with a Rwanda-level genocide? Assuming that's true, and I think most analysts now believe it certainly could be, what in the world could the US do?
There is an unexamined assumption that we are not willing to wake up to and acknowledge and put back on the table. It's that the government in Iraq needs to be a democracy. But what if that's the thing we have to give up?
What if the US was premature in its assumptions about regime change, and a democracy for Iraq can't work? Or, more aptly stated, can't work under the present conditions? Or, at least given the way the US went about foisting it, it can't work any more? What if there is no way now - no matter how many troops the US sends and how much money it pours into the black hole - for there to be democratic institutions in place that are compatable with peace?
The answer is actually simple then. The US needs to install a dictatorship in Iraq. Not just a secret dictatorship, a de facto dictatorship, but an honest-to-God dictatorship, one in name as well. A real, old-fashioned Franco or Pinochet-style dictatorship. Why not? The US could say it was wrong, that it screwed it up, and that in the name of all that is decent, it is going to do the one thing it still can do to save the lives of average Iraqi citizens.
Sorry for the confusion folks, but the United States is now going to impose a fascist dictator on the people of Iraq, train him and his army, aid and arm him, and get out. He will brutally surpress all opposition, assassinate his enemies, and create order. How bad could that be? I mean, consider the horror of how things are now. He would need to be a native Iraqi, and as friendly a person to the US as the US could get who would still be cruel enough and smart enough to rule with an iron fist. I happen to not think there's any shortage of these people in Iraq.
The US forces there could even allow the Iraqi people to vote for him.
Occupation troops could bill it as "One last election -- Vote for your new dictator!" No more phony legislature, no more infighting and lack of clarity about who is working for whom, or whether this province is in cahoots with the Americans, that one still tied to a warlord. The US needs to give the Iraqi people what they want, or if not what they want, at least what they are used to. If the US does this, I believe we can have peace, and can provide Iraqis with some stability.
Yes, a fascist dictator would have to do some bad things. He would have to execute people, sometimes without trial, with no due process. He would have to supress public assembly, freedom of the press, and any right to dissent.
All those cherished "freedoms" would be sacrificed for law and order. But the number of innocent people who would die would be 1/10,000th of how many innocent people are dying today. And isn't that the metric to be employeed?
To the objection that freedom in some abstract sense would be sacrificed, I
say: so what?! The fact that Iraqis can now write tepid editorials, purchase alcohol, watch M*A*S*H, use profanity, see a prostitute, or whatever pathetic and miniscule elements masquerading as freedom they, or we, affix to the bone crunching miasma of pain that is day-to-day life in 2006 Iraq, is so much less freedom than at least the freedom to walk down the street at night, there really is no comparison.
Democracy is not the highest good. And freedom is just an abstraction.
There
is being free, which is an actual thing, and that surely is the highest good, but that is not what the people in Iraq are. With certain preconditions, it is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that democracy leads to the most freedom. But without those preconditions, as we are seeing, democracy actually leads to the least freedom. And so in the name of being free we must now change course and impose a brutal, military dictatorship in Iraq. Look at the bright side. At least that's something the US has some experience doing.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Hilary - O Say What You See
So now Hilary is in. And she's leading in the polls. I'm interested to see what she says. I've always liked Hilary, mainly enjoyed watching her talk - watching the way her mind works is fascinating - and now I'm interested in what actual ideas she's going to come up with to straddle the hawks vs. doves divide.
I think it's fitting, and wonderful, that this is the first presidential election with a major candidate who is a woman, and at the same time the first one with a serious contender who is black. Despite their differences, there will be a lot that Barack and Hilary will agree about, and even more than that, a lot that they will share in terms of editorial style and world view.
My question for Hilary will address the the transcendent issue of our times, peace. Can we recast the United States at this dire juncture to stand for more than consumption and killing? What is the vision for America? Tell us Hilary, what do you see?
I think it's fitting, and wonderful, that this is the first presidential election with a major candidate who is a woman, and at the same time the first one with a serious contender who is black. Despite their differences, there will be a lot that Barack and Hilary will agree about, and even more than that, a lot that they will share in terms of editorial style and world view.
My question for Hilary will address the the transcendent issue of our times, peace. Can we recast the United States at this dire juncture to stand for more than consumption and killing? What is the vision for America? Tell us Hilary, what do you see?
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Ford Eulogy
Yes, he was kind of dumb and fell down a lot, but what people don't know about Gerry Ford is that in the very heart of the 70's, just when we needed it, he ended Watergate, the Vietnam War and the recession. And he was a lot cooler than people realize.
Pardoning Nixon was at the time considered traitorous. But we now view this act as not so bad. Ford wasn't so wrong that lynching Nixon, fun as it would have been, would have dragged all of us through the muck of retribution and it probably would have gotten out of hand. So good Ger, we did actually need a final cleansing to move past Watergate and heal. And history certainly judged Nixon as harshly as his critics would have wished.
Vietnam had dragged on for over a decade. But it was Ford's seeing the writing on the wall, and using his leadership and time in the House that finally influenced Congress to sufficiently withhold funding to let the war end. In September 1974, just a month after Ford assumed the Presidency, Congress appropriated only $700 million for South Vietnam. This left the South Vietnamese under-funded and resulted in a rapid and steep decline of military readiness and morale. In December, when North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam, Ford responded with diplomatic protests but no military force. The end came soon thereafter.
And while Ford got a lot of crap for Nixon's pardon, the flip side to that was a blanket pardon to over 100,000 draft evaders and military deserters. The amnesty offered was very far reaching, and covered convicted draft violators, convicted military deserters and AWOL's, draft violators who had never been tried, and veterans with less than honorable discharges for absence offenses.
Ford did much to contribute to a stronger US economy. When Ford came into office inflation was over 12 percent. He came up with the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) program and those cute WIN buttons and by 1975 inflation had dropped to 7 percent and was down to 4.6 percent by mid '76 when he was running for re-election. Unemployment dropped during his presidency as well. In March of '75, a total of 84.1 million persons had jobs. In July, 1976, employment had risen to an all-time high of 87.9 million, an increase of 3.8 million jobs in a little over a year. Unemployment was 8.9 percent in May 1975, but by July 1976, it was down to 7.8 percent.
Ford accomplished this by tightly controlling spending. Despite being from the House, he vetoed more legislation - percentage-wise - than just about any president. He wielded the power of the Presidential veto 55 times, citing the need to battle inflation. The total dollar savings from his vetoes was about $10 billion, as Congress upheld 45 of the vetoes.
More than all this, he restored honesty and integrity to the executive branch. The guy really had no guile. I met him once, and I could see it right away. He was like my grandpa. He came from that last generation of Americans that could afford to be honest.
The sense of stability he transmitted was another reason the economy improved. But the other benefit from Ford's nature was the era of Good Times that swept the land once Nixon left the stage. For Ford had that greatest of great presidential qualities. He was a hands off guy. He knew our country was enjoying the biggest party in the history of the world, and he let us get on with it. Once Nixon was gone, and Rock Music and disco and glam and popularization of the 60's as the 70's and everything that went with it had arrived, mid-70's America became what we all now know it to have been: the zenith of Western civilization. Time will vindicate those who believe it that that was the peak. And Gerry was our absentee landlord. Thank you Gerry.
Of course, he was also a pretty tough dude. He survived 2 assassination attempts, as well as hitting his head and tripping a lot. LBJ once said, "That guy's played too many football games without his helmet," but 93 years old is a testament to some pretty healthy living. And let's not forget the bravery of his wife Betty, who was the first first lady alcoholic in a long and tawdry history of several first lady alcoholics to admit it and go into rehab. But what we don't normally appreciate is that Betty invented rehab. The Betty Ford Clinic formed the basis for the recovery movement that continues to this day.
A little known fact is that once Ford got into office, he did pretty good for the environment too. Though never ratified by congress, in 1975 he proposed an energy program that would have given the US energy independence by 1985. He did put the Energy Research and Development Administration into law which provided for the creation of alternative energy supplies such as solar and geothermal energy.
He also got passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which among other things set up the now well-known national gasoline emergency reserves system.
During his presidency, there were no Americans fighting other nation's wars. Ford was the first President since Eisenhower who ran for election without a single American fighting overseas. And he gave us the first mini-military victory after a losing war, successfully sending Air Force and Marines to take back the freighter Mayaguez, seized by Cambodian Commies.
Crime was increasing at a rate of 18 percent a year when Ford took office. The rate of increase went down to 9 percent the following year, and in the first quarter of '76 had dropped to 4 percent.
The thing that always nailed him, his infamous quote that "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration," sounds less asinine when you read his follow up to the moderator's request for clarification:
"I don't believe, Mr. Frankel, that the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous: it has its own territorial integrity and the United States does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia and Rumania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the president of the United States and the people of the United States are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy and their freedom."
I get and appreciate his point here. And it was proved true 12 years later. So thanks Gerry. You were a helluva guy. You stood up for what was right, and you did it with humility, and without a single vote being cast.
Pardoning Nixon was at the time considered traitorous. But we now view this act as not so bad. Ford wasn't so wrong that lynching Nixon, fun as it would have been, would have dragged all of us through the muck of retribution and it probably would have gotten out of hand. So good Ger, we did actually need a final cleansing to move past Watergate and heal. And history certainly judged Nixon as harshly as his critics would have wished.
Vietnam had dragged on for over a decade. But it was Ford's seeing the writing on the wall, and using his leadership and time in the House that finally influenced Congress to sufficiently withhold funding to let the war end. In September 1974, just a month after Ford assumed the Presidency, Congress appropriated only $700 million for South Vietnam. This left the South Vietnamese under-funded and resulted in a rapid and steep decline of military readiness and morale. In December, when North Vietnam violated the Paris peace treaty by attacking Phuoc Long Province in South Vietnam, Ford responded with diplomatic protests but no military force. The end came soon thereafter.
And while Ford got a lot of crap for Nixon's pardon, the flip side to that was a blanket pardon to over 100,000 draft evaders and military deserters. The amnesty offered was very far reaching, and covered convicted draft violators, convicted military deserters and AWOL's, draft violators who had never been tried, and veterans with less than honorable discharges for absence offenses.
Ford did much to contribute to a stronger US economy. When Ford came into office inflation was over 12 percent. He came up with the WIN (Whip Inflation Now) program and those cute WIN buttons and by 1975 inflation had dropped to 7 percent and was down to 4.6 percent by mid '76 when he was running for re-election. Unemployment dropped during his presidency as well. In March of '75, a total of 84.1 million persons had jobs. In July, 1976, employment had risen to an all-time high of 87.9 million, an increase of 3.8 million jobs in a little over a year. Unemployment was 8.9 percent in May 1975, but by July 1976, it was down to 7.8 percent.
Ford accomplished this by tightly controlling spending. Despite being from the House, he vetoed more legislation - percentage-wise - than just about any president. He wielded the power of the Presidential veto 55 times, citing the need to battle inflation. The total dollar savings from his vetoes was about $10 billion, as Congress upheld 45 of the vetoes.
More than all this, he restored honesty and integrity to the executive branch. The guy really had no guile. I met him once, and I could see it right away. He was like my grandpa. He came from that last generation of Americans that could afford to be honest.
The sense of stability he transmitted was another reason the economy improved. But the other benefit from Ford's nature was the era of Good Times that swept the land once Nixon left the stage. For Ford had that greatest of great presidential qualities. He was a hands off guy. He knew our country was enjoying the biggest party in the history of the world, and he let us get on with it. Once Nixon was gone, and Rock Music and disco and glam and popularization of the 60's as the 70's and everything that went with it had arrived, mid-70's America became what we all now know it to have been: the zenith of Western civilization. Time will vindicate those who believe it that that was the peak. And Gerry was our absentee landlord. Thank you Gerry.
Of course, he was also a pretty tough dude. He survived 2 assassination attempts, as well as hitting his head and tripping a lot. LBJ once said, "That guy's played too many football games without his helmet," but 93 years old is a testament to some pretty healthy living. And let's not forget the bravery of his wife Betty, who was the first first lady alcoholic in a long and tawdry history of several first lady alcoholics to admit it and go into rehab. But what we don't normally appreciate is that Betty invented rehab. The Betty Ford Clinic formed the basis for the recovery movement that continues to this day.
A little known fact is that once Ford got into office, he did pretty good for the environment too. Though never ratified by congress, in 1975 he proposed an energy program that would have given the US energy independence by 1985. He did put the Energy Research and Development Administration into law which provided for the creation of alternative energy supplies such as solar and geothermal energy.
He also got passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which among other things set up the now well-known national gasoline emergency reserves system.
During his presidency, there were no Americans fighting other nation's wars. Ford was the first President since Eisenhower who ran for election without a single American fighting overseas. And he gave us the first mini-military victory after a losing war, successfully sending Air Force and Marines to take back the freighter Mayaguez, seized by Cambodian Commies.
Crime was increasing at a rate of 18 percent a year when Ford took office. The rate of increase went down to 9 percent the following year, and in the first quarter of '76 had dropped to 4 percent.
The thing that always nailed him, his infamous quote that "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe and there never will be under a Ford administration," sounds less asinine when you read his follow up to the moderator's request for clarification:
"I don't believe, Mr. Frankel, that the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Romanians consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I don't believe that the Poles consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. Each of those countries is independent, autonomous: it has its own territorial integrity and the United States does not concede that those countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union. As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia and Rumania to make certain that the people of those countries understood that the president of the United States and the people of the United States are dedicated to their independence, their autonomy and their freedom."
I get and appreciate his point here. And it was proved true 12 years later. So thanks Gerry. You were a helluva guy. You stood up for what was right, and you did it with humility, and without a single vote being cast.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
It's the Stupidity, Stupid!
I really think John "I botched the joke" Kerry may be a robot programmed by Richard Nixon to destroy the Democratic party. Why on earth is he apologizing for trying to tell the truth? Everybody says that a politician can’t get elected if he or she speaks honestly about hard issues. But how can we know if no one ever tries it?
If I were John Kerry, I would fight back with the whole truth, and it would go something like this:
Former GOP congressman Mac Collins, who is trying to oust Democratic Rep. Jim Marshall, attacked what I said about how stupid we are to be in Iraq by saying: "The men and women who serve in our all-volunteer armed forces are plenty smart." I have no problem with that. But I said if you don't study and don't do your homework, you end up in
Now, Mr. Collins won’t admit it, but you and I know that joining the Army is pretty much the only way for the poor and uneducated to get out of poverty and get an education in our country anymore. But no one believes it was our troops’ decision. We are in
Since we’re talking about stupidity, however, I would speculate that the average intelligence in the
Simply stated, it is commonly recognized that favoring brute force versus attempting to use reason to work things out generally reveals a lack of intelligence. And yet, despite all our ideals and so-called values, our country, the one we're supposed to believe in, the good ole
The reality is that a day came where we just started bombing and invading
So when I say we are stupid to fight the way we are, I refer to the uneducated and thoroughly discredited opinion that the
So let’s take a lesson: If you don't do your homework and you aren't smart, you get stuck in
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
I'm Jewish and So Am I
Probably won't come as a big shock to anybody, but my real name is Samuel and I'm a Jew. That's because all Americans are Jews, and not just because the same spirit that posited the Jewish idea also posited the American idea. Because the world is going to start treating the Americans the way they treat the Jews. that's the real reason. But that's a discussion for another day. I'm coming out here though, because I just read an article in Sunday's New York Times by Bernard-Henry Levy entitled Pondering, Discussing, Traveling Amid and Defending the Inevitable War, and I think it's time I drew the line for me and my fellow Jews, since at this point it's really the same thing as the line we need to draw for us as Americans. So as you read this and hear me talking to the Jews, every time I say Jew, I want you to read "American." OK?
So what Levy wrote was a means of justifying Israel's behavior: "But why shouldn’t what is due to some also be due to others?" This is the old question of why can't the Jews treat our enemies the way our enemies treat us? Good question. The answer is a version of the Hasidic teaching that God’s manner of distributing reward or punishment is not necessarily the manner of men. When Jews complain: "We mourn when we accidentally kill their innocents. They celebrate when our innocents die," that is sadly, but certainly, correct. But Arabs or Muslims dancing at our death is likewise not our concern or affair. That is between them and God. When Jews envy the lower moral standard non-Jews are held to, this is a version of the 'evil eye' Jesus spoke of in Matthew 20. The only comparison to be made is with the truth.
So what Levy wrote was a means of justifying Israel's behavior: "But why shouldn’t what is due to some also be due to others?" This is the old question of why can't the Jews treat our enemies the way our enemies treat us? Good question. The answer is a version of the Hasidic teaching that God’s manner of distributing reward or punishment is not necessarily the manner of men. When Jews complain: "We mourn when we accidentally kill their innocents. They celebrate when our innocents die," that is sadly, but certainly, correct. But Arabs or Muslims dancing at our death is likewise not our concern or affair. That is between them and God. When Jews envy the lower moral standard non-Jews are held to, this is a version of the 'evil eye' Jesus spoke of in Matthew 20. The only comparison to be made is with the truth.
As the Bible progresses and the Jews emerge, they increasingly distinguish themselves as a people created by a social contract, setting themselves apart, not just as another tribe, but a people defined by morality. This is truly unprecedented and as has been noted by most legal scholars, forms the basis for common law as we now know it. Furthermore, this act of positing ourselves as a conscious entity, and the boundaries forged by insisting on values that have their basis in consciousness, formed the basis for civil society, as well as of the Jews as a people. To forsake these values to preserve the people defined by them is not an option. Indeed, it's not even a logical possibility.
I know it seems unfair that we are Jews, but we are. Painful as it sounds, nothing Arabs or Muslims do is a justification for anything we do; that is God's law. It's a straight line to God and comparison is not an option. The proof of the good is in the result. Lévy claims that Israel is justified in what for her is a less discriminating response to violence because of the increasingly unabashed and popular calls for the end to Israel. And because Iran and its agent will soon have nuclear weapons capable of achieving this aim, he argues that we need to be willing to "go after" Hezbollah and be less precise than we might like to be in targeting our bombs, insofar as our enemy has begun to act on these lethal threats.
But speaking as a Jew I would argue: Of course we need to go after them, but in a way that works. Politicians can pridefully pontificate all day long, but at the end of the day our real goal is survival. And survival may prove difficult insofar as we are totally surrounded by Arab countries that want to annihilate us. So while I agree that we may, in some sense, have the 'right' to bomb their neighborhoods, since that is absolutely where the attacks come from, we do need to decide if that which we have the right to do is that which we should do for the good of the Jews. It's not about being right. It's not about teaching anybody a lesson. It is far more serious than that. We must ask ourselves what is the highest good, and I would argue the highest good is the survival of the Jews as Jews.
Now, it is not debatable that we have transformed the vast majority of the population of Lebanon from being against Hezbolla to being pro Hezbolla, and that with popular will goes political will and military might. With these newly energized forces now so strongly in favor of wiping out Isreal, we have greatly diminished her chances for survival. Nor can we continue to ignore that similar attempts using brute force (finally we are putting the lie to the right's constant refrain: "all the Arabs understand is strength") have increasingly backfired. From time to time, talking heads on the news from Israeli leadership triumphantly announce the death of this or that member of the terrorist leadership because we bombed a building and killed a number of people, a terrorist leader among them. Necessary and acceptable casualties, we say. But until we admit and come to terms with how many new leaders this morally weak and inferior approach breeds, we will remain on the losing end.
I really don't need to debate this with anybody any more. Just look at the numbers! Please, because they are getting really bad. It's as if there is a monster that can either be fed or not fed. And the monster is a huge number of average people now living their lives for the destruction of the Jews. (We Jews can say: "but the Jews are not Israel," but that is a distinction the monster no longer makes.) So if the devotion is not to the negative pleasure of retribution, but to the unassailable value of surviving _as Jews_, then I say we as Jews have to be willing to do what works, and accept the cosmic challenge presented to the Jews: to continue to discriminate. I am not saying that we should not strike back. I am however saying that we must strike back very precisely, maintaining our moral core, in a way that allows us to emerge victorious.
Our only options at this stage are very risky and unattractive. What is demanded of us is man-to-man, knife-in-the-teeth, incredibly well coordinated, life-or-death, highly tactical and righteous behavior. The last phase of the battle is on pause, but given that we may have subsequent phases with similar charactaristics, let me share what I would have done regarding the most recent transgression. My solution would have been to make a very big deal about how we will not respond in kind, meanwhile marshalling all our resources and attacking every known person who is active in Hezbolla, in a manner similar to the way we went after the Munich terrorists after the '68 Olympics. A full court press using the best of Israeli intelligence and technology, as precision-guided as a laser beam, but with a tremendous amount of information up front about what our intentions are (in this case: invade to a buffer zone and wait for the UN to send peacekeeper forces), tied to an information campaign about the moral limits we are placing on the war campaign, would have been a saner way to victory.
It would have been slow, it would have been ugly, it would have been extremely dangerous, all of that and worse. But it would have had - and next chance we get it still would have - one advantage: it would be morally unassailable and it would work. We would be able to enlist Jews worldwide with a multitude of outreach methods. Call it propaganda or even bribery, but we would be appealing to and using any and every backchannel and media outlet to let the world know we will not bomb back the way they are bombing us. But. We will neither accept this behavior. We will reject it in a manner that makes it utterly clear who we are and why we are not going away. We will do what Jews do best: we will discriminate.
We are dealing with the hopes and aspirations of the human spirit here, and to emerge victorious we must address it. Like Iraq, ultimately, we cannot militarize our way out of this situation. This is all about hearts and minds, and for better or worse, for us, there is no path to victory that cannot travel the moral high ground.
We must unite around these tenets. Just because they kill innocents does not mean we should. This logic is unassailable, and emanates from the holy of holies. It says: Our very reason for being is nothing if not that our values prohibit us from this kind of behavior. If we sacrifice our reason for being in order to be, we by definition cease to be. To fail to be ourselves is to fail ultimately, and so we will fail.
I know this path is correct because everybody is upset with me for advocating it. The left is angry that I am advocating some aspect of retaliation or at least non-pacifism. The right is angry because they fear weakness. I am not saying we should lie down and take it. But we are a traumatized people, and so are they. We face off, and both of us see ancient enemies. They see the Ottomans and oppressors throughout history, and we see the Nazis. Of course it's terribly sad and disheartening to see 60 years later - given how triggered we are - how successful Hitler ended up being. Only the persecuted overreacts the way these two ancient enemies do. How ironic that the cause of each of our trauma is not the other. But we see our abusers in the other, and as the abused, we lash out. Each side in this conflict is unfortunately acting out of its trauma in a way which may doom both sides.
And indeed, many of my colleagues, Jewish and otherwise, believe WWIII has softly begun. There may be a temporary cease fire, but the story behind the scenes is that the Arab / Muslim street is now highly radicalized and enrolled in a way as never before in calling for Israel's destruction. A plausable scenario, where following this phase the Arabs arm to the teeth and prepare for the end game. And the next time antagonisms will escalate more, and there will be bigger bombs, and more death and destruction, and ultimately boom goes Tel Aviv and boom goes Beirut, or we may say Megiddo (the town between Israel and Lebanon whose name forms the basis for the word Armageddon).
What is going to stop it? Nobody knows, but it will be some alternative that looks more attractive than the negative pleasure of the status quo. Our way there involves a solution that is built from a different approach, one that is willing to distinguish between what we have the right to do, and what we actually must do to win. My father has a saying: "You can be right, but do you want to be dead right?" It's not about being right. It's about not stoking an insane, monstrous fire that we cannot control. Unfortunately our enemies are not in control of it either.
There exists a very narrow path between sacrificing ourselves and the kind of retribution we are engaged in. It is a hair's breadth wide and cut into a cliff, and we must divine it on a moonless night. The ability to distinguish such a thing seems almost impossible. But we're Jews. That's what we do.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Not PC, but this one seems obvious
| Sunday, December 25, 2005 |    |
US radiation snooping of Muslims called ‘disturbing’
WASHINGTON: The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the largest Muslim rights organisation in the United States, has described the revelation that Muslim gatherings and homes around Washington have been electronically “sniffed” for radiation as “disturbing.”Read it all on the Daily Times website, front page with today's date: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/.
Well, I'm with Bill Maher on this one. It really is Muslims, so we really do have to focus on Muslims. Muslims after all did declare war on the US in the name of Islam. Polls indicate a huge percentage of Muslims, and a tiny percentage of any other group, agree with the stated aims of Al-Qaeda. If the folks getting searched at the airports don't like it, they should write their own head office and complain, not ours.
My $0.02.
~ US
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Back from Mexico
Sorry gang. After Bush won, I needed a year off. I escaped to Mexico, a little town named Yelapa where they treat even me with unconditional love. But a year drinking Ricea and moping have done little to counter the feelings of despair that engulfed me after I realized that it was finally, after so many years of rolling up my sleeves, too late.
But now I wonder. Upon my return, I decided to review the year's events. I started with the Inaugural Address, and that is the subject of this posting. For as I reread it, it dawned on me that the problem was the solution, and our challenge was not to confront the tyrant in our own midst, but rather to use the Internet and its unprecedented ability to foster free speech to join forces with the loftiest claims made in the inaugural, and leave the hollowed out reality their claims are meant to justify on the trash heap of history it crawled out of.
Specifically, what I wish to say is that George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address may be the greatest speech I have ever read. Not heard of course, for reasons that anyone with ears would find obvious. But if you read the speech, it's obvious that the America proposed in it is an America so far beyond and above what has ever been the case, so far removed and above what current administration policy creates, an America so good, so righteous, so complete, that it is actually an America I wish to live in.
Please read this speech as if you had no idea who wrote it. Read it as if it were not merely proscriptive, but descriptive, and decide for yourself if we have any other choice but force the man who wrote it, and those who would claim to be its co-authors, to live up to it. Imagine a world where our country actually was the force for freedom so eloquently painted by these words, and insodoing consider not just the hypocrisy of what passes for their enactment, but what a difference it would make if progressives and activists and the movement as a whole demanded not that the mission statement itself be revamped, but that it simply be lived up to.
Herewith, the speech in its entirety:
But now I wonder. Upon my return, I decided to review the year's events. I started with the Inaugural Address, and that is the subject of this posting. For as I reread it, it dawned on me that the problem was the solution, and our challenge was not to confront the tyrant in our own midst, but rather to use the Internet and its unprecedented ability to foster free speech to join forces with the loftiest claims made in the inaugural, and leave the hollowed out reality their claims are meant to justify on the trash heap of history it crawled out of.
Specifically, what I wish to say is that George W. Bush's Second Inaugural Address may be the greatest speech I have ever read. Not heard of course, for reasons that anyone with ears would find obvious. But if you read the speech, it's obvious that the America proposed in it is an America so far beyond and above what has ever been the case, so far removed and above what current administration policy creates, an America so good, so righteous, so complete, that it is actually an America I wish to live in.
Please read this speech as if you had no idea who wrote it. Read it as if it were not merely proscriptive, but descriptive, and decide for yourself if we have any other choice but force the man who wrote it, and those who would claim to be its co-authors, to live up to it. Imagine a world where our country actually was the force for freedom so eloquently painted by these words, and insodoing consider not just the hypocrisy of what passes for their enactment, but what a difference it would make if progressives and activists and the movement as a whole demanded not that the mission statement itself be revamped, but that it simply be lived up to.
Herewith, the speech in its entirety:
Vice President Cheney, Mr. Chief Justice, President Carter, President Bush, President Clinton, members of the United States Congress, reverend clergy, distinguished guests, fellow citizens:
On this day, prescribed by law and marked by ceremony, we celebrate the durable wisdom of our Constitution and recall the deep commitments that unite our country. I am grateful for the honor of this hour, mindful of the consequential times in which we live and determined to fulfill the oath that I have sworn and you have witnessed.
At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half-century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical -- and then there came a day of fire.
We have seen our vulnerability, and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny -- prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder -- violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders and raise a mortal threat.
There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment and expose the pretensions of tyrants and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant. And that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this Earth has rights, and dignity and matchless value because they bear the image of the maker of heaven and Earth.
Across the generations, we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen and defended by citizens and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own.
America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.
My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people from further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve and have found it firm.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation -- the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet, rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty -- though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are -- the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.
And all the allies of the United States can know: We honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat.
Today, I also speak anew to my fellow citizens:
From all of you, I have asked patience in the hard task of securing America, which you have granted in good measure. Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill and would be dishonorable to abandon. Yet because we have acted in the great liberating tradition of this nation, tens of millions have achieved their freedom.
And as hope kindles hope, millions more will find it. By our efforts, we have lit a fire as well -- a fire in the minds of men. It warms those who feel its power, it burns those who fight its progress, and one day this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world.
A few Americans have accepted the hardest duties in this cause -- in the quiet work of intelligence and diplomacy ... the idealistic work of helping raise up free governments ... the dangerous and necessary work of fighting our enemies. Some have shown their devotion to our country in deaths that honored their whole lives, and we will always honor their names and their sacrifice.
All Americans have witnessed this idealism and some for the first time. I ask our youngest citizens to believe the evidence of your eyes. You have seen duty and allegiance in the determined faces of our soldiers. You have seen that life is fragile, and evil is real, and courage triumphs. Make the choice to serve in a cause larger than your wants, larger than yourself, and in your days you will add not just to the wealth of our country but to its character.
America has need of idealism and courage because we have essential work at home -- the unfinished work of American freedom. In a world moving toward liberty, we are determined to show the meaning and promise of liberty.
In America's ideal of freedom, citizens find the dignity and security of economic independence, instead of laboring on the edge of subsistence. This is the broader definition of liberty that motivated the Homestead Act, the Social Security Act and the GI Bill of Rights. And now we will extend this vision by reforming great institutions to serve the needs of our time.
To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will bring the highest standards to our schools and build an ownership society. We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses, retirement savings and health insurance -- preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.
By making every citizen an agent of his or her own destiny, we will give our fellow Americans greater freedom from want and fear and make our society more prosperous and just and equal.
In America's ideal of freedom, the public interest depends on private character -- on integrity and tolerance toward others and the rule of conscience in our own lives. Self-government relies, in the end, on the governing of the self.
That edifice of character is built in families, supported by communities with standards,and sustained in our national life by the truths of Sinai, the Sermon on the Mount, the words of the Koran and the varied faiths of our people. Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before -- ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today and forever.
In America's ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service and mercy and a heart for the weak. Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love.
Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another and must always remember that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time.
From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many. From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few. Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom. We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes -- and I will strive in good faith to heal them.
Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart. And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.
We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom. Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as he wills.
We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul. When our Founders declared a new order of the ages, when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty, when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner "Freedom Now" -- they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled.
History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction set by liberty and the author of liberty.
When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, "It rang as if it meant something." In our time it means something still.
America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world and to all the inhabitants thereof. Renewed in our strength -- tested, but not weary -- we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom.
May God bless you, and may he watch over the United States of America.
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Saturday, November 06, 2004
The L Word
Babe the Blue Ox here.
Paul has not left the cabin in four days, working his way through a whole standard pallet of Kentucky whiskey. Every few minutes, I hear the clank of another empty flying out the window onto a pile that is now bigger than one of my cow-pies.
Okay, while Paul is out of it for a while, here's the deal. Yes, the election was stolen. But it was stolen fair and square. You can't cheat an honest man, and who lets an election get stolen? A wussy does, is what the Babe has to say about that. John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Ed Muskie, what do they all have in common? Um, they're wusses? Uh huh.
The Democrats have one big problem. The word Conservative is just a whole lot of a better word than the word Liberal. Conservative is what you want your football team to be in the Superbowl--that is, unless they're Losing in the 3rd quarter, or unless they are one of those one-hit-wonder teams that rely on a flashy offense of the kind that never win Superbowls. Conservative is what you want to be with your money. Conservative is what you want to be with your "powers" and your "energies" for "when it really matters." Conservative is what you want to be as a Liberal with one of your key concerns, i.e. the environment, because you are a Conservationist.
Liberal is not what you want anybody to be with your daughter. When you say that somebody uses a word, or a spice, or their drinking, or anything else "Liberally," you're making fun of 'em. Somebody who is Liberal with his money is good to have as a friend, but is definitely not someone whose business you would invest in.
The British Liberal Party of 200 years ago began as a radical opposition movement against the old entrenched powers. Back then the alarming connotations of Liberality as a policy of state ("Sure take whatever you want. I'm feelin' loose."), were not a problem because they were meant as a provocation. These were the guys who wanted to break up the old system of rigid state control, whether the Tory or Whig version. The Liberal idea was freedom, that is to stop fighting the forces of change, let it loose with free trade, free religious expression, and expansion of the voting franchise.
The Liberals went from radicalism to decades of political domination at the very height of British glory and empire. They held on to power so long because the crazy Liberal idea worked just as they thought it would: it created wealth without completely destroying society. In their early years of rule they could rely on the nearly unanimous support of the newly emerging class of people who were the direct beneficiaries of this wealth, that is everybody who made real money off of the industrial revolution, from capitalists to engineers to merchants to ad-men.
It's significant that the Liberals hit the rocks when they tried to expand their set of Enlightenment ideals from the individual-oriented principles of free trade and free expression to the universalist principles of national self-determination and protection of human welfare. Half of their base of support deserted them when it came to Home Rule for Ireland and poor-relief at home. The Liberal, or anti-Tory, cause was lost until the emergence of the Industrial Worker power base and the Labour Party. It's significant also that while Whigs yielded to Liberals and Liberals to Labour, a Tory remained a Tory. The impulse to say no to change, to try to turn back time, is a basic and primitive impulse that needs no name change or even any explanation.
Things went a little differently in the U.S. For one thing, before the Liberal party even existed in England, the U.S. was established with a Constitution and Bill of Rights that made it the most Liberal nation that had ever existed. And so our political struggles broke out along different lines, with a series of changing sets of party oppositions that were aligned not so much to the classic Liberal/Conservative opposition as to regional or class conflicts, such as between the South and North or between industrial and agricultural regions.
The result is a very twisted and complex genealogy of U.S. political parties. For example, the Democratic party was originally founded on states' rights and opposition to taxes, causes eventually taken up by Republicans just as they took up the principle of Racism when the Democrats abandoned it. Meanwhile, the Republican Party of Lincoln was in some respects the counterpart of the Liberals in England, and remained so until Teddy Roosevelt defected from the party in 1912.
The Liberal, progressive, or anti-conservative cause has shifted its objectives over time. Liberalism meant free-trade in early 19th century England when the existing autocracy needed to be broken to permit industry to develop, but it meant trust-busting around the turn of the century when industrial wealth had gained too much power. Liberalism at first ignored the worker, but then took up his cause after it won him the franchise and after public education and new media technologies made it possible for the masses to participate in politics. Idealistic humanitarian, environmental, and civil rights issues have always been a part of Liberalism, but have always been contentious, having periodically torn its voting bases to shreds since the Liberals fell into decline in England some 120 years ago.
To be a Liberal means to have an answer to the complaint that "things were better off the way they used to be." The problem is nobody really believes this; everybody actually believes on an emotional level that things were better before. The enormous advantage, on the other hand, is that thing are going to change whether or not we want them to, and thus all Conservatives will always be wrong. And so far, nostalgia aside, all of this change, at least in America, has been for the better. The key is to realize what needs to happen and to make it happen, like, for example, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Johnson did.
Paul has not left the cabin in four days, working his way through a whole standard pallet of Kentucky whiskey. Every few minutes, I hear the clank of another empty flying out the window onto a pile that is now bigger than one of my cow-pies.
Okay, while Paul is out of it for a while, here's the deal. Yes, the election was stolen. But it was stolen fair and square. You can't cheat an honest man, and who lets an election get stolen? A wussy does, is what the Babe has to say about that. John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Ed Muskie, what do they all have in common? Um, they're wusses? Uh huh.
The Democrats have one big problem. The word Conservative is just a whole lot of a better word than the word Liberal. Conservative is what you want your football team to be in the Superbowl--that is, unless they're Losing in the 3rd quarter, or unless they are one of those one-hit-wonder teams that rely on a flashy offense of the kind that never win Superbowls. Conservative is what you want to be with your money. Conservative is what you want to be with your "powers" and your "energies" for "when it really matters." Conservative is what you want to be as a Liberal with one of your key concerns, i.e. the environment, because you are a Conservationist.
Liberal is not what you want anybody to be with your daughter. When you say that somebody uses a word, or a spice, or their drinking, or anything else "Liberally," you're making fun of 'em. Somebody who is Liberal with his money is good to have as a friend, but is definitely not someone whose business you would invest in.
The British Liberal Party of 200 years ago began as a radical opposition movement against the old entrenched powers. Back then the alarming connotations of Liberality as a policy of state ("Sure take whatever you want. I'm feelin' loose."), were not a problem because they were meant as a provocation. These were the guys who wanted to break up the old system of rigid state control, whether the Tory or Whig version. The Liberal idea was freedom, that is to stop fighting the forces of change, let it loose with free trade, free religious expression, and expansion of the voting franchise.
The Liberals went from radicalism to decades of political domination at the very height of British glory and empire. They held on to power so long because the crazy Liberal idea worked just as they thought it would: it created wealth without completely destroying society. In their early years of rule they could rely on the nearly unanimous support of the newly emerging class of people who were the direct beneficiaries of this wealth, that is everybody who made real money off of the industrial revolution, from capitalists to engineers to merchants to ad-men.
It's significant that the Liberals hit the rocks when they tried to expand their set of Enlightenment ideals from the individual-oriented principles of free trade and free expression to the universalist principles of national self-determination and protection of human welfare. Half of their base of support deserted them when it came to Home Rule for Ireland and poor-relief at home. The Liberal, or anti-Tory, cause was lost until the emergence of the Industrial Worker power base and the Labour Party. It's significant also that while Whigs yielded to Liberals and Liberals to Labour, a Tory remained a Tory. The impulse to say no to change, to try to turn back time, is a basic and primitive impulse that needs no name change or even any explanation.
Things went a little differently in the U.S. For one thing, before the Liberal party even existed in England, the U.S. was established with a Constitution and Bill of Rights that made it the most Liberal nation that had ever existed. And so our political struggles broke out along different lines, with a series of changing sets of party oppositions that were aligned not so much to the classic Liberal/Conservative opposition as to regional or class conflicts, such as between the South and North or between industrial and agricultural regions.
The result is a very twisted and complex genealogy of U.S. political parties. For example, the Democratic party was originally founded on states' rights and opposition to taxes, causes eventually taken up by Republicans just as they took up the principle of Racism when the Democrats abandoned it. Meanwhile, the Republican Party of Lincoln was in some respects the counterpart of the Liberals in England, and remained so until Teddy Roosevelt defected from the party in 1912.
The Liberal, progressive, or anti-conservative cause has shifted its objectives over time. Liberalism meant free-trade in early 19th century England when the existing autocracy needed to be broken to permit industry to develop, but it meant trust-busting around the turn of the century when industrial wealth had gained too much power. Liberalism at first ignored the worker, but then took up his cause after it won him the franchise and after public education and new media technologies made it possible for the masses to participate in politics. Idealistic humanitarian, environmental, and civil rights issues have always been a part of Liberalism, but have always been contentious, having periodically torn its voting bases to shreds since the Liberals fell into decline in England some 120 years ago.
To be a Liberal means to have an answer to the complaint that "things were better off the way they used to be." The problem is nobody really believes this; everybody actually believes on an emotional level that things were better before. The enormous advantage, on the other hand, is that thing are going to change whether or not we want them to, and thus all Conservatives will always be wrong. And so far, nostalgia aside, all of this change, at least in America, has been for the better. The key is to realize what needs to happen and to make it happen, like, for example, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and Johnson did.
Thursday, October 21, 2004
BOO!
Two headlines from yesterday's papers:
"Bush Campaigns With Brother, Accuses Kerry Of Using Scare Tactics"
(The Frontrunner, 10-20-04)
"Cheney, Invoking Specter of a Nuclear Attack, Questions Kerry's Strength"
(NYTimes 10-20-04)
"Bush Campaigns With Brother, Accuses Kerry Of Using Scare Tactics"
(The Frontrunner, 10-20-04)
"Cheney, Invoking Specter of a Nuclear Attack, Questions Kerry's Strength"
(NYTimes 10-20-04)
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
Yankee Doodle Mouths Off
Hey Sports Fans, Yankee Doodle here, close and personal friend of Uncle Sam's. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Pillsbury Dough Boy asking:
Do you have any info on why I should vote Kerry and not Bush?
Honestly, I don't like either, but I would hope to have some real facts to work with. Unfortunately, the American Political landscape is full of lies and deceit. Especially the 2000 election bullshit in Florida and the Iraq War. That is why I won't vote for Bush, but Kerry really isn't a good replacement. What do I do?
~ PDB
Dear PDB,
Well, I completely agree. However, always remember that you are voting for one of two "behind the scenes" World Order (WO) agendas. And from where I sit as our nation's _other_ red, white and blue superstar, I would rather have the Kerry World Order faction in place than the Bush one. The Bush WO faction is about Oil, Arms, Pharmaceuticals (big profits from the disease model of health care) and other Drug Running (propping up Wall Street - i.e. FARC and poppy's cabal), and basically makes its power from creating war (including the draft BTW).
Remember Bush's father's famous one-liner in 1990 that nobody but the insiders understood - eternal war for eternal peace? Or Bush Jr.'s "I just know how the world works," line the other night? Kerry's faction is more aligned around technology. While they are hell-bent on outer technology to disempower the masses, at least it is not as environmentally insane as the Bush WO approach. And when democrats are in the White House, it's just a helluva lot easier to make your way through the "system," to deal with bureaucracy. Plus, it gives us all a better opportunity to wake up to our own INNER power. At least with Kerry, I have a better shot of hearing from my inner power than from the Bush faction, with the overload of everyone running scared from some terrorist boogeyman.
Many of my international colleagues believe that the Bushco WO faction was behind 9/11 in order to ignite and further their agenda. My belief, along with Uncle Sam, is that Bush looked the other way in hopes that 9/11 would be the break his faction needed. Indeed, if you look at it big picture, 9/11 shifted the economy from technology as we knew it (circa 1990's) back to the old guard military industrial companies, such as Lockheed, Halliburton, etc. Basically, you have two bonesmen representing the two WO factions, so it is a choice of how you want your Lords and Masters to rule over you.
The third choice is to buy a small island in the South Pacific, declare it Sovereign, pitch a tent and move there. The Powers That Be have pretty much locked up the rest of the planet at this point.
Blessings,
Yankee Doodle
Do you have any info on why I should vote Kerry and not Bush?
Honestly, I don't like either, but I would hope to have some real facts to work with. Unfortunately, the American Political landscape is full of lies and deceit. Especially the 2000 election bullshit in Florida and the Iraq War. That is why I won't vote for Bush, but Kerry really isn't a good replacement. What do I do?
~ PDB
Dear PDB,
Well, I completely agree. However, always remember that you are voting for one of two "behind the scenes" World Order (WO) agendas. And from where I sit as our nation's _other_ red, white and blue superstar, I would rather have the Kerry World Order faction in place than the Bush one. The Bush WO faction is about Oil, Arms, Pharmaceuticals (big profits from the disease model of health care) and other Drug Running (propping up Wall Street - i.e. FARC and poppy's cabal), and basically makes its power from creating war (including the draft BTW).
Remember Bush's father's famous one-liner in 1990 that nobody but the insiders understood - eternal war for eternal peace? Or Bush Jr.'s "I just know how the world works," line the other night? Kerry's faction is more aligned around technology. While they are hell-bent on outer technology to disempower the masses, at least it is not as environmentally insane as the Bush WO approach. And when democrats are in the White House, it's just a helluva lot easier to make your way through the "system," to deal with bureaucracy. Plus, it gives us all a better opportunity to wake up to our own INNER power. At least with Kerry, I have a better shot of hearing from my inner power than from the Bush faction, with the overload of everyone running scared from some terrorist boogeyman.
Many of my international colleagues believe that the Bushco WO faction was behind 9/11 in order to ignite and further their agenda. My belief, along with Uncle Sam, is that Bush looked the other way in hopes that 9/11 would be the break his faction needed. Indeed, if you look at it big picture, 9/11 shifted the economy from technology as we knew it (circa 1990's) back to the old guard military industrial companies, such as Lockheed, Halliburton, etc. Basically, you have two bonesmen representing the two WO factions, so it is a choice of how you want your Lords and Masters to rule over you.
The third choice is to buy a small island in the South Pacific, declare it Sovereign, pitch a tent and move there. The Powers That Be have pretty much locked up the rest of the planet at this point.
Blessings,
Yankee Doodle
Two Weeks to Election Day
If Bush wins (and I do mean "if") the key reason will be that Americans are afraid of changing pale horses of death in mid-nightmare. So Kerry needs to shout: "Wake Up!" And he needs to do so in so many different ways that somehow enough people hear it and have time to rise from their brainwashed slumber by November 2. Kerry needs to convey this vibe in all his answers, a sense of almost disbelief at what's going on (laughing and shaking his head in mock shock at the latest Bush attack). And mainly, he needs to be having fun. In every sound byte, we need to see that fun is still possible, that levity and humor can still have a place in the West Wing. Kerry can win if he lifts us out of the pall of terror.
And, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that current polls are showing that, post-debate, Kerry isn't getting the bounce that he needs. What Kerry needs is to make his own bounce. He needs five (5) big messages that he just pounds on, from here to the election. When you go to www.johnkerry.com, there should be five compelling graphics with these themes, and when you click on them, a one minute video of Kerry talking his core position on the theme comes up, underneath of which there are more choices: Ask a Question Read Policy Paper See what America Thinks See more Video.
Herewith the five themes:
1) Right war or wrong war, we're losing the war...
Kerry explains that we need to recast to win, and that he has the credibility to start fresh, and the experience to run the new war. He must emphasize that he's not going to bail on the war on terror, and that he can be just as tough and vigilant as W.
2) We need allies to win the war; I can get 'em.
Kerry needs to remind us that hitting the reset button buys the US a lot. What might our allies say and do if the entire country throws Bush out. Kerry can reframe the situation. He can say: "I have wiggle room Bush has burnt up." He can use his flip-flopper powers for good! If he is feeling particularly bold, he can even say that he will open up a second "peace" front, because he knows that war is not the only answer.
3) Bush is paid for by the rich and is not your friend. He lied to you and steals from you.
Nobody really cares about this one, but at least one of the five messages has got to say it.
4) I love America and always have - my history proves it.
We need constant, heart-rending rhetoric from Kerry about how "really loving America" means criticizing and helping to fix it. How America is always unfinished, but unless we keep improving it we stagnate. All that classic comic-book rhetoric: we need it now!
5) You can't privatize everything and tax nothing.
Back to the economy, he can just point out again and again that Bush is bankrupting the country, losing us jobs, giving it all to the rich, and has no plan to reverse the trend.
But at the end of the day, Kerry has to show that he is a tough-minded, military-minded, no-nonsense true believe who will not lose control if we hand him the reins. That's the majority of it.
And, I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that current polls are showing that, post-debate, Kerry isn't getting the bounce that he needs. What Kerry needs is to make his own bounce. He needs five (5) big messages that he just pounds on, from here to the election. When you go to www.johnkerry.com, there should be five compelling graphics with these themes, and when you click on them, a one minute video of Kerry talking his core position on the theme comes up, underneath of which there are more choices: Ask a Question Read Policy Paper See what America Thinks See more Video.
Herewith the five themes:
1) Right war or wrong war, we're losing the war...
Kerry explains that we need to recast to win, and that he has the credibility to start fresh, and the experience to run the new war. He must emphasize that he's not going to bail on the war on terror, and that he can be just as tough and vigilant as W.
2) We need allies to win the war; I can get 'em.
Kerry needs to remind us that hitting the reset button buys the US a lot. What might our allies say and do if the entire country throws Bush out. Kerry can reframe the situation. He can say: "I have wiggle room Bush has burnt up." He can use his flip-flopper powers for good! If he is feeling particularly bold, he can even say that he will open up a second "peace" front, because he knows that war is not the only answer.
3) Bush is paid for by the rich and is not your friend. He lied to you and steals from you.
Nobody really cares about this one, but at least one of the five messages has got to say it.
4) I love America and always have - my history proves it.
We need constant, heart-rending rhetoric from Kerry about how "really loving America" means criticizing and helping to fix it. How America is always unfinished, but unless we keep improving it we stagnate. All that classic comic-book rhetoric: we need it now!
5) You can't privatize everything and tax nothing.
Back to the economy, he can just point out again and again that Bush is bankrupting the country, losing us jobs, giving it all to the rich, and has no plan to reverse the trend.
But at the end of the day, Kerry has to show that he is a tough-minded, military-minded, no-nonsense true believe who will not lose control if we hand him the reins. That's the majority of it.
Monday, October 18, 2004
Say You're Sorry
It takes a big man to say he's sorry. And given how exploitable Bush's inability to apologize for anything is, Kerry's gaffe identifying Mary Cheney as someone who is likely biologically gay could have been his opportunity to lead by example and shame the Bushies.
Mike McCurry, Clinton's former Press Secretary, who recently started helping run the Kerry campaign, and who has political instincts like Vince Lombardi had sports instincts, knew right away what to do: "Say you're sorry," he told Kerry. Show what a real man does. Take the issue away from them. Unfortunately, Mary Beth and the rest demurred, and so the Republicans managed to get their post-debate distraction issue from an unlikely place: righteous indignation at insulting a person of the gay persuasion. You can't say these guys don't appreciate irony.
Kerry could have said: "If I hurt Mary Cheney's feelings, I'm sorry." He could have continued: "Believe me, I have no desire to discuss people's sexual orientation on TV. But this would not even be an issue if the Republicans weren't trying to legislate morality. I'm only bringing it up because there is a little hypocrisy on their side. And they themselves made an issue of the Vice President's daughter. But sometimes people get used in this process in a way that I don't believe in, and I inadvertently participated in that the other night. I'm sorry. Any other questions."
Think of what the media spin would have been: Is he a woosie for saying he's sorry? The answer would have ended up being, no, he's the kind of role model I want in the Oval Office. How many parents teach their children that character is about owning your mistakes?
Time and time again, history shows us that if a politician steps up to the plate and just apologizes, the public forgives him. It even worked for Jimmy Swaggart, and it worked for Clinton the first time. And when Clinton didn't do it the second time, it almost sunk him. McCurry saw this carnage first hand, and the Kerry team should have listened to him.
Mike McCurry, Clinton's former Press Secretary, who recently started helping run the Kerry campaign, and who has political instincts like Vince Lombardi had sports instincts, knew right away what to do: "Say you're sorry," he told Kerry. Show what a real man does. Take the issue away from them. Unfortunately, Mary Beth and the rest demurred, and so the Republicans managed to get their post-debate distraction issue from an unlikely place: righteous indignation at insulting a person of the gay persuasion. You can't say these guys don't appreciate irony.
Kerry could have said: "If I hurt Mary Cheney's feelings, I'm sorry." He could have continued: "Believe me, I have no desire to discuss people's sexual orientation on TV. But this would not even be an issue if the Republicans weren't trying to legislate morality. I'm only bringing it up because there is a little hypocrisy on their side. And they themselves made an issue of the Vice President's daughter. But sometimes people get used in this process in a way that I don't believe in, and I inadvertently participated in that the other night. I'm sorry. Any other questions."
Think of what the media spin would have been: Is he a woosie for saying he's sorry? The answer would have ended up being, no, he's the kind of role model I want in the Oval Office. How many parents teach their children that character is about owning your mistakes?
Time and time again, history shows us that if a politician steps up to the plate and just apologizes, the public forgives him. It even worked for Jimmy Swaggart, and it worked for Clinton the first time. And when Clinton didn't do it the second time, it almost sunk him. McCurry saw this carnage first hand, and the Kerry team should have listened to him.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Where We're At
Up to the minute electoral vote count:
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Up to the minute summary of the latest polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
Up to the minute summary of the latest polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/bush_vs_kerry.html
Funky Monkey
Three swings – three good hits. No home runs, but you can win the game by hitting singles.
I thought Kerry looked damn good. I am actually starting to like the guy. I was going to hold my nose and vote for him. Now I’m just going to vote for him.
I see that he managed to reduce the height and solidity of his hair somehow.
As for the other guy. I think he took too much of whatever he's on these days. Or maybe somebody finally got a signal jammer into the building.
The President is a grinning baboon.
Or maybe, a raging sock puppet foaming at the mouth.
Or maybe, a cheap malicious thug.
Or maybe he is completely insane.
But unless Kerry converts these subtle victories into some sort of "buzz," he will still lose. I just visited the Kerry Web site, and it's kind of lame. Certainly by the next day after the debate, you want the clip where Bush says he's not concerned about Osama bin Laden juxtaposed with the clip where Bush says he never said that. You want the “hard work” song that’s circulating on line. In the classic American tradition, you want to make the President look like the simian sock puppet he basically is.
The goal now is to melt it all down into a handful of nuggets that totally blow away the flip-flopper thing and lay out the vision in an unambiguous and big way. We need some fun stuff up there. Hell, you can even dress him up as me.
I thought Kerry looked damn good. I am actually starting to like the guy. I was going to hold my nose and vote for him. Now I’m just going to vote for him.
I see that he managed to reduce the height and solidity of his hair somehow.
As for the other guy. I think he took too much of whatever he's on these days. Or maybe somebody finally got a signal jammer into the building.
The President is a grinning baboon.
Or maybe, a raging sock puppet foaming at the mouth.
Or maybe, a cheap malicious thug.
Or maybe he is completely insane.
But unless Kerry converts these subtle victories into some sort of "buzz," he will still lose. I just visited the Kerry Web site, and it's kind of lame. Certainly by the next day after the debate, you want the clip where Bush says he's not concerned about Osama bin Laden juxtaposed with the clip where Bush says he never said that. You want the “hard work” song that’s circulating on line. In the classic American tradition, you want to make the President look like the simian sock puppet he basically is.
The goal now is to melt it all down into a handful of nuggets that totally blow away the flip-flopper thing and lay out the vision in an unambiguous and big way. We need some fun stuff up there. Hell, you can even dress him up as me.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
The Undercard
Cheney did well, somehow managing to pass himself off a human being, which is not easy for him. Edward's hair was parted oddly, and as the debate wore on he did seem to diminish in stature. The moment of introduction was priceless, with Cheney looking deadly serious and somberly nodding as his name is mentioned, Edwards wheeling ferally to the camera and flashing a smarmy fashion-runway smile. Good lord. I hope someone tells him to stop doing that.
Both guys are good talkers, never lose the thread or wheel off into uncharted oceans of previously prepared material, unlike their better halves. It's funny how an aura of diminishment hovers over these "vice" presidential debates, no matter who the guys are--it's like a bronze medal match or a performance to an empty house, just a little sad.
Not a big fan of Edwards. The guy seems to have no moral center. He's too young, too clean, and that smile is pure used car salesman. Boy is he a southerner. He is so vulnerable to the "personal injury lawyer" attack, which rouses something primal in people for some reason, and crosses up class and party lines. He may not necessarily be shallow and opportunistic in reality but in a dirty fight, those big white teeth could get hurt.
Both guys are good talkers, never lose the thread or wheel off into uncharted oceans of previously prepared material, unlike their better halves. It's funny how an aura of diminishment hovers over these "vice" presidential debates, no matter who the guys are--it's like a bronze medal match or a performance to an empty house, just a little sad.
Not a big fan of Edwards. The guy seems to have no moral center. He's too young, too clean, and that smile is pure used car salesman. Boy is he a southerner. He is so vulnerable to the "personal injury lawyer" attack, which rouses something primal in people for some reason, and crosses up class and party lines. He may not necessarily be shallow and opportunistic in reality but in a dirty fight, those big white teeth could get hurt.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Kerry Knocked Him Out
Last night as I was going to bed, my wife Lady Liberty said to me that I was looking good for an old man. I reminded her that Uncle Sam is like a Bible figure, and that Methuselah lived 969 years. I reckon that as a sprightly 228 year old, I still got some good years ahead of me. I felt the same looking at the guy I would like to play me in a four year TV mini-series: John Kerry. He'll have to grow the beard and grow out the hair, but if history is any guide, he won't have to dye it white when he runs for re-election in 2008.
The 27 year old John F. Kerry testifying to Congress, which C-Span has pieced together from videos and tapes (they switch to still photos of the sessions when all they have is audio -- and they edited them together quite nicely), that's the young America confronting the tyrannical king. Kerry was the kind of guy who threw himself into the war, and lots of historical and otherwise figures have done that. But what makes him American is that he then threw himself into his reaction to the war. And after all the dust settled, John F. Kerry, our Democratic candidate for President, emerged as our country's most notable (and arguably most famous, along with possibly Ron Kovic) and emblematic Vietnam veteran -- the veteran that returned home to speak out against the war.
When he came back and spoke publicly for the first time about the crazy world of "the 'Nam" as it was known to the men who served there, the insane world of mayhem that Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket and before that Deer Hunter and Coming Home portrayed, he was the first. People don't realize it, but Kerry's testimony opened the way for that mythology to enter the American psyche. He really has been a hero, twice. Take a look at the testimony he gave in 1971. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/audio/kerry3_0001.wmv. You will see a devoutly patriotic guy, who clearly has deep convictions and beliefs, try to bring home the truth, and speak that truth to power about things he sees as Un-American. When Jon Voight is talking to that high school in Coming Home, that's straight John Kerry.
But he was 27, and testifying before congress was about all he could do. So he went to work from there, under the principle that the best inspiration is not only great leaders, but sometimes inept leaders. It is especially American to draw inspiration from seeing that somebody in charge is squandering opportunities. The legacy of our unique revolutionary history is the idea that stupidity is the mother of all political impulse. It makes you want to lead because you can do it better.
Now he's 60, and in one of the most Biblically inspired events in American history, John Kerry is able to step back into the ghost of his 27-year-old self, and inherit the same kind of war all over again. Kerry can say in the same way, with the same orientation, that this war is a mistake, and that we need to get out of it somehow. Hopefully victoriously, but without illusions about what we're up against, America will avoid a foreign entanglement of Washingtonian proportions. And if Kerry can inhabit that ghost, as I began to see him do the other night, it could be positively Lincolnesque. I felt the beginnings of a Kerry policy the other night, tinged with nuances of: "With malice toward none; with charity for all..." Last night what I heard from John Kerry was: I want to be your president and I'm already acting like I am him.
Kerry is slowly saying it: "Sorry folks, but this _is_ Vietnam." Bush's black and white vision is crumbling as Kerry makes it clear that it is about gray areas if we're to get out alive. It's about reaching out to the Muslim world to create non-violent channels of communication. It's about solving this problem. Of course, that means it's about stating this problem first, which neither candidate has done in any meaningful way.
When Putin said: "You want me to negotiate with bastards that kill children!" I thought: "Yes, if those same bastards have potential guns to the heads of more children." We're in a hostage situation, and we have to agree that the first step is to do whatever it takes to talk those nut cases off the ledge. The mistake we're making is not realizing that _pushing_ them off the ledge only encourages more people to imitate them and climb to the ledge themselves.
So long as the core of our response to attacks from radical Islam is KILL THEM, and for this of course I fault Kerry almost as much as Bush, we are feeding the core value of murder as an OK way to deal with problems of inequality. But in a world where murder is used as a political weapon this is a value that radical Islam simply has as an advantage. They are closer to the reality of what that means than we are, and if we play it their way, we are doomed to lose. We have to live up to our humanitarian values in our response if we are to win.
So let's get Bush's and Putin's attention! Are you speaking out of pride brothers Vladimir and W? Listen to me, my friends of a greater good. It's a negative pleasure, your pride, and as you feed it, people die. The world would love a drama as great as the one you envision of a holy standoff between good and evil, where the infidels are vanquished at the point of the mighty Russian (and we could say the same thing for Bush and the American) saber. But while you are waging your mighty battle, many of us will unnecessarily die.
Sadness overwhelms even these most grandiose of visions, and the only recourse is a balance of global manhunts, not global invasions, on the one hand, with a broader attempt at understanding and reconciliation on the other. When a kidnapper has a knife to your throat, it doesn't matter what is right. When a driver at the intersection is not going to stop even though you have the right of way, do you let him go, or do you insist on being dead right? This is not about wrong or right. This is about - at least as new nightmares land in our minds - people with guns to our heads. These people are mad. And we join them when we say there's no other way to deal with them but to try to kill them all.
Because if you go to war in order to kill them, you have to go in there with such firepower that you have to kill lots of innocent people. The innocent who witness and survive these killings hear almost nothing of our reasoning, and would rarely be swayed by it if they did. But they hear a great deal from Mullahs and other leaders that explains it all quite nicely (and even in some cases not so falsely) in terms of imperialism and greed.
There is no more effective way at creating exponentially greater numbers of people who are willing to try to kill us than the current "war on terrorism." When you kill a terrorist using our current methods you make ten more. What we have to do is defeat the idea. In the phrase from the days of Vietnam, we have to win hearts and minds. The only way to do that is to lead by vision, and reach out to those who find themselves alienated from our society. We have to state somehow that we feel their pain.
In the first debate, Kerry said, of the terrorists, I will hunt them down and I will kill them. And for a few very wonderful moments (and this debate would feature many), George Bush was flabbergasted. He stammered his way into the response, but Kerry claimed the only ground that Bush had. Bush's great strength is clinging to these classical images of America, but Kerry had managed to appropriate the central one.
Bush did have a couple solid shots that reflected these classical images. One was shedding a few tears and having a few laughs with a mom of one of the dead soldiers. One was given to the feeling that he met with them just so he could say he did for this debate. More typical of his willingness to share the grief of family's who have lost a child in Iraq (or I what I call A Wreck) is that he never attended one single funeral of over 1,000 US soldiers killed in a war he initiated. The other good punch he got in was when he had 90 seconds to respond a second time about North Korea and he just took a pass, simply saying of his answer: "I already gave it." Lehrer was taken aback, asking Bush if he was sure he was willing to waste 90 seconds of prime time with 70 million people watching. Bush just said, "Yeah, I told you what I think." Right there, Bush showed insane confidence, showed the great power of not caring, that he could just waste that time. And he showed us his non-speechifying style, which was a deeply classical American thematic. "Got nothing to say there." Good for him.
So I tried to put on the George Bush helmet, to see the world the way the people who love him see it. What I saw as I pretended to want him to win was that people appreciate that he's looking out for their interests. They think he will keep the playing field level for folks like them. He'll keep out the weirdoes that bleed off resources. If you're in his club, he'll go on a raid now and again to get you stuff. He is holding down the fort. He's not a Eurofag.
And now we will see if he can hold the fort on having a monopoly on delivering on these deliverables. To my view, Kerry pulled the rug out from under him. He came out feisty and tough and delivered a knockout for the ages.So, it's been awhile since I've spoken up, but Uncle Sam wants you again. Only this time it's not to come join a war; it's to figure out how to unjoin it.
And no, Uncle Sam is not a flip-flopper. That's right America. I can be for one war and against another. If our job is to defeat terrorism, and it is, than the only terror we have to defeat is in our minds. We have to join together on this, and mean it. We can change the world if we put our minds to it. It will take tremendous vigilance, just as George Bush says. But the vigilance is to fight it wherever that makes the most sense, and, frankly, defeat it by communicating with it and deflating it and even reaching out to it where _that_ makes the most sense. The point is to win. The value for doing that is to defuse it by any means possible. Winning means being willing to do what it takes to win, even accommodating it out of existence. What we have to win is not living in a world permeated by terror.
Simply stating in a public way that we are going to come together and focus all our energies on defeating it will defeat it. We will beat it by being sustainable, by being fair, by being unworthy of 9/11. When we are willing to say in the same context as the war on terror: look at how we're exploiting the world, look at our role, then we have begun to dig ourselves out of the denial that’s got us pinned down in this war. I haven't heard anybody say that, and I don’t expect anybody to. I'm willing to support Kerry even if he never gets there. The geopolitical world view he represents is simply closer to that vision even if not articulated by him.
But Uncle Sam can articulate it. That’s my job! And so I say: WE WILL DEFEAT TERRORISM. Say it with me. Of course the outcome is unclear and we don't know if we will fail to defeat it, or if we will succeed in defeating it. So why not assume the latter? After all, your old Uncle Sam is an optimist, and I like to win. Americans know the power of a dream, so let's put our energy into the outcome we want to see.
The 27 year old John F. Kerry testifying to Congress, which C-Span has pieced together from videos and tapes (they switch to still photos of the sessions when all they have is audio -- and they edited them together quite nicely), that's the young America confronting the tyrannical king. Kerry was the kind of guy who threw himself into the war, and lots of historical and otherwise figures have done that. But what makes him American is that he then threw himself into his reaction to the war. And after all the dust settled, John F. Kerry, our Democratic candidate for President, emerged as our country's most notable (and arguably most famous, along with possibly Ron Kovic) and emblematic Vietnam veteran -- the veteran that returned home to speak out against the war.
When he came back and spoke publicly for the first time about the crazy world of "the 'Nam" as it was known to the men who served there, the insane world of mayhem that Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket and before that Deer Hunter and Coming Home portrayed, he was the first. People don't realize it, but Kerry's testimony opened the way for that mythology to enter the American psyche. He really has been a hero, twice. Take a look at the testimony he gave in 1971. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/audio/kerry3_0001.wmv. You will see a devoutly patriotic guy, who clearly has deep convictions and beliefs, try to bring home the truth, and speak that truth to power about things he sees as Un-American. When Jon Voight is talking to that high school in Coming Home, that's straight John Kerry.
But he was 27, and testifying before congress was about all he could do. So he went to work from there, under the principle that the best inspiration is not only great leaders, but sometimes inept leaders. It is especially American to draw inspiration from seeing that somebody in charge is squandering opportunities. The legacy of our unique revolutionary history is the idea that stupidity is the mother of all political impulse. It makes you want to lead because you can do it better.
Now he's 60, and in one of the most Biblically inspired events in American history, John Kerry is able to step back into the ghost of his 27-year-old self, and inherit the same kind of war all over again. Kerry can say in the same way, with the same orientation, that this war is a mistake, and that we need to get out of it somehow. Hopefully victoriously, but without illusions about what we're up against, America will avoid a foreign entanglement of Washingtonian proportions. And if Kerry can inhabit that ghost, as I began to see him do the other night, it could be positively Lincolnesque. I felt the beginnings of a Kerry policy the other night, tinged with nuances of: "With malice toward none; with charity for all..." Last night what I heard from John Kerry was: I want to be your president and I'm already acting like I am him.
Kerry is slowly saying it: "Sorry folks, but this _is_ Vietnam." Bush's black and white vision is crumbling as Kerry makes it clear that it is about gray areas if we're to get out alive. It's about reaching out to the Muslim world to create non-violent channels of communication. It's about solving this problem. Of course, that means it's about stating this problem first, which neither candidate has done in any meaningful way.
When Putin said: "You want me to negotiate with bastards that kill children!" I thought: "Yes, if those same bastards have potential guns to the heads of more children." We're in a hostage situation, and we have to agree that the first step is to do whatever it takes to talk those nut cases off the ledge. The mistake we're making is not realizing that _pushing_ them off the ledge only encourages more people to imitate them and climb to the ledge themselves.
So long as the core of our response to attacks from radical Islam is KILL THEM, and for this of course I fault Kerry almost as much as Bush, we are feeding the core value of murder as an OK way to deal with problems of inequality. But in a world where murder is used as a political weapon this is a value that radical Islam simply has as an advantage. They are closer to the reality of what that means than we are, and if we play it their way, we are doomed to lose. We have to live up to our humanitarian values in our response if we are to win.
So let's get Bush's and Putin's attention! Are you speaking out of pride brothers Vladimir and W? Listen to me, my friends of a greater good. It's a negative pleasure, your pride, and as you feed it, people die. The world would love a drama as great as the one you envision of a holy standoff between good and evil, where the infidels are vanquished at the point of the mighty Russian (and we could say the same thing for Bush and the American) saber. But while you are waging your mighty battle, many of us will unnecessarily die.
Sadness overwhelms even these most grandiose of visions, and the only recourse is a balance of global manhunts, not global invasions, on the one hand, with a broader attempt at understanding and reconciliation on the other. When a kidnapper has a knife to your throat, it doesn't matter what is right. When a driver at the intersection is not going to stop even though you have the right of way, do you let him go, or do you insist on being dead right? This is not about wrong or right. This is about - at least as new nightmares land in our minds - people with guns to our heads. These people are mad. And we join them when we say there's no other way to deal with them but to try to kill them all.
Because if you go to war in order to kill them, you have to go in there with such firepower that you have to kill lots of innocent people. The innocent who witness and survive these killings hear almost nothing of our reasoning, and would rarely be swayed by it if they did. But they hear a great deal from Mullahs and other leaders that explains it all quite nicely (and even in some cases not so falsely) in terms of imperialism and greed.
There is no more effective way at creating exponentially greater numbers of people who are willing to try to kill us than the current "war on terrorism." When you kill a terrorist using our current methods you make ten more. What we have to do is defeat the idea. In the phrase from the days of Vietnam, we have to win hearts and minds. The only way to do that is to lead by vision, and reach out to those who find themselves alienated from our society. We have to state somehow that we feel their pain.
In the first debate, Kerry said, of the terrorists, I will hunt them down and I will kill them. And for a few very wonderful moments (and this debate would feature many), George Bush was flabbergasted. He stammered his way into the response, but Kerry claimed the only ground that Bush had. Bush's great strength is clinging to these classical images of America, but Kerry had managed to appropriate the central one.
Bush did have a couple solid shots that reflected these classical images. One was shedding a few tears and having a few laughs with a mom of one of the dead soldiers. One was given to the feeling that he met with them just so he could say he did for this debate. More typical of his willingness to share the grief of family's who have lost a child in Iraq (or I what I call A Wreck) is that he never attended one single funeral of over 1,000 US soldiers killed in a war he initiated. The other good punch he got in was when he had 90 seconds to respond a second time about North Korea and he just took a pass, simply saying of his answer: "I already gave it." Lehrer was taken aback, asking Bush if he was sure he was willing to waste 90 seconds of prime time with 70 million people watching. Bush just said, "Yeah, I told you what I think." Right there, Bush showed insane confidence, showed the great power of not caring, that he could just waste that time. And he showed us his non-speechifying style, which was a deeply classical American thematic. "Got nothing to say there." Good for him.
So I tried to put on the George Bush helmet, to see the world the way the people who love him see it. What I saw as I pretended to want him to win was that people appreciate that he's looking out for their interests. They think he will keep the playing field level for folks like them. He'll keep out the weirdoes that bleed off resources. If you're in his club, he'll go on a raid now and again to get you stuff. He is holding down the fort. He's not a Eurofag.
And now we will see if he can hold the fort on having a monopoly on delivering on these deliverables. To my view, Kerry pulled the rug out from under him. He came out feisty and tough and delivered a knockout for the ages.So, it's been awhile since I've spoken up, but Uncle Sam wants you again. Only this time it's not to come join a war; it's to figure out how to unjoin it.
And no, Uncle Sam is not a flip-flopper. That's right America. I can be for one war and against another. If our job is to defeat terrorism, and it is, than the only terror we have to defeat is in our minds. We have to join together on this, and mean it. We can change the world if we put our minds to it. It will take tremendous vigilance, just as George Bush says. But the vigilance is to fight it wherever that makes the most sense, and, frankly, defeat it by communicating with it and deflating it and even reaching out to it where _that_ makes the most sense. The point is to win. The value for doing that is to defuse it by any means possible. Winning means being willing to do what it takes to win, even accommodating it out of existence. What we have to win is not living in a world permeated by terror.
Simply stating in a public way that we are going to come together and focus all our energies on defeating it will defeat it. We will beat it by being sustainable, by being fair, by being unworthy of 9/11. When we are willing to say in the same context as the war on terror: look at how we're exploiting the world, look at our role, then we have begun to dig ourselves out of the denial that’s got us pinned down in this war. I haven't heard anybody say that, and I don’t expect anybody to. I'm willing to support Kerry even if he never gets there. The geopolitical world view he represents is simply closer to that vision even if not articulated by him.
But Uncle Sam can articulate it. That’s my job! And so I say: WE WILL DEFEAT TERRORISM. Say it with me. Of course the outcome is unclear and we don't know if we will fail to defeat it, or if we will succeed in defeating it. So why not assume the latter? After all, your old Uncle Sam is an optimist, and I like to win. Americans know the power of a dream, so let's put our energy into the outcome we want to see.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
The Threat Within
As the personification of this great country, of course I, Uncle Sam, like all my fellow Americans, want to be rich and live forever. I even believe, contra George Bush, that I will never be truly poor or truly die. I have faith in the promise of America. And I want to make clear that I really like being rich and powerful, and kind of think I deserve it. Could we all be rich and powerful? Why not? But wealth is not my number one priority.
Mainly what I care about is--duh!--my soul. Yes, even Uncle Sam has a soul, and I would rather die and be true to my ideals than live and betray them. That's what being Uncle Sam means to me. If that last sentence sounds quaint or even if it sounds abstract or irrelevant, I would ask you to consider to what degree you've become a victim of these times.
Let me make clear where I stand on this whole soul thing. I am not a pacifist, and as a guy who has always driven a hard bargain, I'm not going to give away the store. As a nation, I cannot abjure the use of power and survive, yet if I don't restrain my predatory development policies I will not prosper. That's what makes the morality of a nation the same as the morality of a person.
From the beginning, I have defined the terms of the compact that guards me from the fatal corruption of my soul or the ruinous tainting of my honor: fight to the death for the idea of freedom, and never allow that idea to be eroded away by small acts of cowardice.
I am especially concerned about our history of extortions, assassinations, and betrayals, as well as our enslavements, invasions, subjugations, conquests, genocides, and annexations. Yes, most of these things seemed necessary at the time, and until recently. And yes, they were all actions that a majority of well-informed citizens signed on to. But the guilt and responsibility for all of my crimes is a part of me. The bad stuff will always be there, but we still have tomorrow in our hands.
Yes, our enemies killed a whole lot of innocent civilians a few years ago, and that proved what we had forgotten, which is that we are vulnerable, and also taught us something new, which is that certain recently developed ideas and technologies mean that the field of war can be carried anywhere, to anyone, at any time.
I know what my pals Washington and Jefferson would have said. "It can be shewn with Authority that the chief Purpose of these, our Near Eastern Enemies at War, is above all to shake the Confidence of the Citizenry in the Principles of this Republic. To curtail our Freedoms in response to these base and cowardly Attacks upon mere Innocents would be to grant these Terroristes nothing less than the Victory for which they strive." Or something like that.
We're going to take some hits. But the original ideal of freedom, the freedome that created our Amerika, is "Don't Tread On Me." They are willing to die; are we? If not, then what is worth dying for? In my short 218 years, I've sacrificed 10 million of my sons to freedom. The real threat is not about whether or not more people are going to die. Of course they will, probably. But we are at a cross-roads, where we have to decide whether being America is about having it easy, or if it is about something else. When I was young, a few hundred years ago, I wouldn't have had to explain this to people, but we've gotten fat and lazy.
We need to rise up, and wake up, and saddle up! I want YOU!
Mainly what I care about is--duh!--my soul. Yes, even Uncle Sam has a soul, and I would rather die and be true to my ideals than live and betray them. That's what being Uncle Sam means to me. If that last sentence sounds quaint or even if it sounds abstract or irrelevant, I would ask you to consider to what degree you've become a victim of these times.
Let me make clear where I stand on this whole soul thing. I am not a pacifist, and as a guy who has always driven a hard bargain, I'm not going to give away the store. As a nation, I cannot abjure the use of power and survive, yet if I don't restrain my predatory development policies I will not prosper. That's what makes the morality of a nation the same as the morality of a person.
From the beginning, I have defined the terms of the compact that guards me from the fatal corruption of my soul or the ruinous tainting of my honor: fight to the death for the idea of freedom, and never allow that idea to be eroded away by small acts of cowardice.
I am especially concerned about our history of extortions, assassinations, and betrayals, as well as our enslavements, invasions, subjugations, conquests, genocides, and annexations. Yes, most of these things seemed necessary at the time, and until recently. And yes, they were all actions that a majority of well-informed citizens signed on to. But the guilt and responsibility for all of my crimes is a part of me. The bad stuff will always be there, but we still have tomorrow in our hands.
Yes, our enemies killed a whole lot of innocent civilians a few years ago, and that proved what we had forgotten, which is that we are vulnerable, and also taught us something new, which is that certain recently developed ideas and technologies mean that the field of war can be carried anywhere, to anyone, at any time.
I know what my pals Washington and Jefferson would have said. "It can be shewn with Authority that the chief Purpose of these, our Near Eastern Enemies at War, is above all to shake the Confidence of the Citizenry in the Principles of this Republic. To curtail our Freedoms in response to these base and cowardly Attacks upon mere Innocents would be to grant these Terroristes nothing less than the Victory for which they strive." Or something like that.
We're going to take some hits. But the original ideal of freedom, the freedome that created our Amerika, is "Don't Tread On Me." They are willing to die; are we? If not, then what is worth dying for? In my short 218 years, I've sacrificed 10 million of my sons to freedom. The real threat is not about whether or not more people are going to die. Of course they will, probably. But we are at a cross-roads, where we have to decide whether being America is about having it easy, or if it is about something else. When I was young, a few hundred years ago, I wouldn't have had to explain this to people, but we've gotten fat and lazy.
We need to rise up, and wake up, and saddle up! I want YOU!
Monday, September 27, 2004
Down to a few
It continues to look bleak, with the NYTimes reporting today that Bush's lead is indeed in the double digits. So, here are some of my suggestions to blow it open:
1) Go on Howard Stern, talk guy talk
2) Have a beer and say "I'd love to do this with George, but he don't drink!"
3) Rent an hour on TV the night before the debates
More free Karl Rove-ish advice to Kerry: In your appearances and in your speeches, you need to develop a theme which will carry you over the transom and on to victory on election day. You need to say the words: "George Bush" over and over as if it was cussing. Over and over. Don't say which George Bush. Lump 'em up, but substitute this phrase for what is wrong, even for terrorism.
Say, but now that we're dealing with... pause ... (and people will wonder what it is you're going to say) George Bush. Saying his name like this, with a sigh, will make it seem synonymous with the problems of the country.
Another limb Kerry might go out on is to address Bush personally. He almost seemed to do it in the 1st debate, and it made for great theatre. He could say: "George, you have awesome powers...you are mighty...(in a very condescending way, as if to say: 'O no, we know you're powerful.'). And when you grabbed for that presidency, that was American. We Democrats were shell shocked. We couldn't believe what you guys did, and in retrospect, we should have fought for every one of those votes down in Florida. But I'm not going to make that mistake this time.
Kerry should say: "I'll make this pledge George Bush. This campaign has been very intense. And whoever wins deserves the full support, assuming we can ascertain that the election was conducted fairly, deserves the full support of the American people, and the full support of their opponent. If we win, I don't want you to run away. If we're going to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we're going to have to have an unprecedented effort. Now Mr. President, I know you have a temper, and can get quite short with people who you don't like or who disagree with you. But are you willing to help this country even if you aren't President. I sure know if I lose I'll still be at your disposal, ready to serve. So please don't turn away in anger if I win...we need you. You've been there.
Actually, in many ways you've done a great job. And my heart goes out to you. But you're messing up on this one major level, which is that what you've set up is gonna cost so many human lives, cost the world so many resources, and indeed could lead to whole sections of the world burning, and so we're here to retire you. But that doesn't mean we won't fight this war."
1) Go on Howard Stern, talk guy talk
2) Have a beer and say "I'd love to do this with George, but he don't drink!"
3) Rent an hour on TV the night before the debates
More free Karl Rove-ish advice to Kerry: In your appearances and in your speeches, you need to develop a theme which will carry you over the transom and on to victory on election day. You need to say the words: "George Bush" over and over as if it was cussing. Over and over. Don't say which George Bush. Lump 'em up, but substitute this phrase for what is wrong, even for terrorism.
Say, but now that we're dealing with... pause ... (and people will wonder what it is you're going to say) George Bush. Saying his name like this, with a sigh, will make it seem synonymous with the problems of the country.
Another limb Kerry might go out on is to address Bush personally. He almost seemed to do it in the 1st debate, and it made for great theatre. He could say: "George, you have awesome powers...you are mighty...(in a very condescending way, as if to say: 'O no, we know you're powerful.'). And when you grabbed for that presidency, that was American. We Democrats were shell shocked. We couldn't believe what you guys did, and in retrospect, we should have fought for every one of those votes down in Florida. But I'm not going to make that mistake this time.
Kerry should say: "I'll make this pledge George Bush. This campaign has been very intense. And whoever wins deserves the full support, assuming we can ascertain that the election was conducted fairly, deserves the full support of the American people, and the full support of their opponent. If we win, I don't want you to run away. If we're going to deal with this new threat of terrorism, we're going to have to have an unprecedented effort. Now Mr. President, I know you have a temper, and can get quite short with people who you don't like or who disagree with you. But are you willing to help this country even if you aren't President. I sure know if I lose I'll still be at your disposal, ready to serve. So please don't turn away in anger if I win...we need you. You've been there.
Actually, in many ways you've done a great job. And my heart goes out to you. But you're messing up on this one major level, which is that what you've set up is gonna cost so many human lives, cost the world so many resources, and indeed could lead to whole sections of the world burning, and so we're here to retire you. But that doesn't mean we won't fight this war."
Sunday, September 26, 2004
Now There's My President
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Dissidents.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Dartmouth_2.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Buckley_2.jpg
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/VVAW05.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/VVAW03.jpg
http://www.koalaproducts.net/wintersoldier/wintersoldiermod2point2.wmv
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/audio/kerry3_0001.wmv
Is any of him left?
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Dartmouth_2.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/Buckley_2.jpg
rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/c04/c04_rwh081504.rm
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/VVAW05.jpg
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/graphics/VVAW03.jpg
http://www.koalaproducts.net/wintersoldier/wintersoldiermod2point2.wmv
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/audio/kerry3_0001.wmv
Is any of him left?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)